The United Nations seemingly has it out for Americans’ Second Amendment-guaranteed rights as it continues to promote its “Small Arms Treaty.” The pact has already raised eyebrows to many gun owners. The most recent attack against the treaty was launched by Larry Bell of Forbes magazine, who published a three page editorial about it. Larry Bell of Forbes magazine.
According to Bell's editorial, the treaty, if approved by the U.S. Senate, would force the United States to do the following:
• Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.
• Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government, of course).
• Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons
(any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull — one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).
• Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.
In short, Bell said, the treaty would override our national sovereignty, in the process giving license to the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights. He also pointed out on the second page of his editorial something interesting, when Hilary Clinton was Senator of New York the National Rifle Association rated her an "F" for gunpoint disarmament that marked New Orleans’ by law enforcement in the horrible aftermath of New Orleans.
If you had any reservations about the globalization plans for the United States, This finding should put those thoughts into prospective.
The political arguments proposes the question of gun politics in the United States center around disagreements that range from the practical – does gun ownership cause or prevent crime? What should the balance be between an individual's right of self-defense through gun ownership and the people's interest in maintaining public safety? To what capacity does the government have the authority to regulate guns, and if it does have the capacity to effective public policy.
Rights-based arguments, consist of Second Amendment arguments, state constitution arguments, right of self-defense arguments, and security against tyranny and invasion arguments. The public policy argument evolve around the reduction of gun violence and firearm deaths, and also can include arguments regarding security against foreign invasions.
Regional differences tend to be higher as far as gun politics goes in the United States. Take for example Jurisdictions that favor gun control are mainly along the Eastern Seaboard such as New York,New Jersey, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, but also include States with major metropolitan areas, notably California and Illinois. Where the crime rate tends to be much higher.
The Northwest on the other hand, such as Montana, Idaho and Washington; the Deep South, including Alabama, Georgia and Florida; and the Southwest, such as Texas, New Mexico, and Utah tend to support gun rights where the crime rate tends to be much lower. As the economy gets worse the crime rate goes up.
The first federal case that interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001) District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as self-defense within the home.
This video has been floating around YouTube and its pretty general about what's going on and who's behind it. Like anything you take it with a grain of salt and follow through with your own research.